Certain assumptions are logically basic criteria of all thought. They are the standards of analysis for any possible mind.
Therefore, these background standards of analysis are necessary for recognizing and knowing that certain objects of our experience are minds or persons.
But only a mind or person using those standards can recognize and know whether any object is a mind or person, and to use these standards for this purpose is to imbue them with mind- and person-determining powers.
Therefore, the ultimate standards of thought are necessarily used to determine whether or not an object is a mind or person.
And relations between these assumptions and the objects in question (minds and persons) are themselves objects that can be predicated only by a mind.
Therefore the ultimate criteria of thought are indistinguishable from an ultimate truth-determining mind or person, since they do nothing of themselves but only authorize and supervise the evaluation of truth claims due to their necessarily-assumed authority and guidance.
Therefore, these criterial assumptions are necessary for recognizing and knowing that certain objects of our experience are minds or persons.
Any argued denial of the necessary universality and logical authority of this system of assumptions logically depends on those same assumptions for its own truth, meaningfulness, significance, goodness or value, and so on.
Therefore, this system of assumptions necessarily adjudicates all truth claims about everything including itself, as well as their denials.
Therefore, this system of assumptions is omniscient as the truth-evaluating instrument of all knowledge, ultimately authoritative as the final court of appeal, sovereign as the universally decisive inferential factor, omnipresent in it’s physically universal applicability, and transcendent in being perfectly functional at any level of supervisory authority over all issues concerning all domains of predication.
Furthermore, these assumptions are the specifying standards for defining everything including minds or persons and God.
Consequently, this system of necessary and logically basic assumptions are as ultimate and mind-like or person-like as any personal ultimate God is conceivable of being.
Treating this aggregate mind-structured object as a reality-wide guide in all thinking about everything is therefore unavoidably necessary, even in reasoned denials that this object has that status as an ultimate universal ruling system factor.
To proceed in thinking at all, we must approximate whatever reason is always indicating as the perfection standard of thought.
Moreover, there is no controversy about the ultimate authority of what this standard or specification reveals to me, even if I don't live up to it, or perfectly actualize the rational ideal in some way.
Those actions are what they are only when judged by that same rational ideal.
Any contemplation of these ultimate assumptions of mind such as reason, formal logic, the rule-set of an ordered context of reality, a hierarchy of values, and the obligation to proceed according to a system of rules---all methodological primitives---results in an endless stream of new knowledge when applied to our ongoing experience of the world.
Consequently, these ultimate decisive rules and ideals of thought actually communicate knowledge and even wisdom by merely contemplating them and their relationship to our belief systems and our world of objects.
The fact that we must reference these principles implies an equally ultimate purpose.
And an ultimate purpose, necessarily depends on a hierarchical set of equally ultimate values.
This system of assumptions is a unified instrument and object of cognition, which necessarily obligates, defines, and influences the mind as the ultimate operating system for thinking about anything.
Consequently, all thinking already necessarily both assumes and references an unchanging and enduring God-level personal mind object made up of prescriptive criterial evaluative principles of thought taken together as a system for the possibility of thinking, that adjudicates everything including mind and personhood themselves, and makes possible inquiry into anything and everything that can be thought.
Therefore, in all defining senses, this comprehensive mind object is indistinguishable from an ultimate personal mind or God.
The rationally necessary is necessarily the existentially real.
Any argument denying this is self-contradictory in trying to rationally necessitate its own truth about the existentially real in spite of what that argument asserts.
And if two objects are indistinguishable from each other with respect to all of their properties, then they are identical.
Therefore, this comprehensive mind object---this necessarily operating rational ideal system of thought---is itself an ultimate personal mind or God.
[NOTE: The only problem I see with this argument is in what constitutes a person. The ultimate nature, authority, and role of reason is indisputable.]